Can't say I really agree with you. Certainly I think that many crimes have a low risk of getting caught, but serious consequences if that happens. I'm not convinced though that the risk-reward situation is that bad. Certainly where I live the police (the Gardi) are not too sharp. Had I no morals I would become a criminal, the possible repercussions simply aren't bad enough to be worth worrying about.

I seriously doubt it would work to your benefit.

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion. But do you really think that the criminal justice system is functional? My view of the UK and Ireland at the least is that it is not.

Certainly most criminals are not very smart or capable. I think this though has a much simpler explanation. Those who are smart and capable have much less reason to commit crime. They can achieve their aims at lower risk.

I'm confused. You seem to be proving my point. Is that your intent?

I certainly accept that the risk of getting caught is one of the reasons that people do not commit crime. I don't think though that with the feeble justice systems of today it is a particularly significant one.

The question was whether or not the prisoner's dilemma showed that its consistently to your benefit to work with society.

I don't agree with the supposed relevance of the prisoner's dilemma to this situation. Normally the prisoners dilemma is about decisions to be made by certain agents. Society is not an agent, it does not make invididual decisions. It is a group, which is something completely different.

Perhaps you are trying to say that defect is a better choice than cooperate for sufficiently stupid or incapable people. I find that extremely doubtful to be true, and the only reason the people who make the choice to defect in that case think otherwise is because they are stupid and incapable. Note that such adjectives do not have to remain true, it is in society's power to change that, they can't, because of the problem of them already having said adjective.

I don't really agree. I think that it is in the interests of very many people to become criminals. They don't not because they are afraid of the consequences but because of the moral codes they follow, for one reason or other.

Also, I think that capable people tend to be more moral. Since, most types of morality put some emphasis on working. And people who work generally become more capable.

This, combined with your previous statement, is rather disturbing. It seems, like much of Randian philosophy, an excuse to ignore those less fortunate, saying that they are immoral and foolish and brought it upon themselves.

For many of the so-called working-class that is what I think, though not all.

In actuality, many of these people were never given a chance, and simply sank into the bog at the bottom of society. At this point, they will tend to continue to ensure their own doom, but that was not their fault nor their choice. Society was the one that gave them the raw deal, and it is society that has the power to pull them back out.

How?

Regardless of that though what I was talking about was something rather different.... In most cases moral codes encourage both obeying the law and working.

The same reason I do anything, to make myself happy. Winning arguments is enjoyable. While in theory converting you to my perspective might make society run an iota better and give me a return, but mainly, its winning the argument, or at least learning to refine my own arguments.

Oh, for sport. Fair enough. To be honest though when I've talked to you in the past you don't seem like you do it for sport.

In debate, you are generally supposed to advocate your points with vigor. Also, I'm probably going to end up doing arguing/information gathering for a career, so I better be putting my energies into it.

A company like Enron would not have been able to commit crimes (for long) had there been proper oversight of their actions. Companies have proven that they can't be trusted to obey the law. If they believe they are unlikely to be caught, they are likely to commit the crime, as it results in a net gain that outweighs the risk.

Stop dancing around terms. The thing needed to stop Enron was oversight, and oversight would logically come in the form of regulation/bureaucracy. What exactly did you think bureaucrats do? They oversee things, that's what.

What I'm complaining about is the way this is done, not that it is done.

Unless they spot violations of the law, law enforcement won't even know they need to do something. Unless you want the policeman to start watching the corporations themselves. That sounds really orwellian awesome. I'd rather keep the bureaucratic and police powers separate, rather than end up with a setting where the choices are Judge Dredd, Oligarchy, Anarchy, or any of them paired.

I don't think you understand how this sort of thing works. Modern regulatory agencies are not like law enforcement. They deal with the application of rules.

The recent Madoff case gives a good example of this. In 1999 the SEC were warned about Madoffs activities. Articles were written in major investment magazines exploring whether Madoff's fund was a confidence trick. They seem not to have investigated it.

This tallies with my experience of regulatory agencies. What they are interested in is making sure that those they regulate adhere to various rules and make correct filings with them. They presume that by doing so they will prevent crimes from occuring, even though fulfillment of the rules often doesn't gaurantee that a crime hasn't occurred. (Also infringement of the rules often doesn't always mean anything terrible has occurred either).

What they should do is behave more like the police, act as investigators of crime. Doing so would not require Orwellian powers. Much of what financial services companies do is public knowledge. Also, precautions could be put in place similar to how the ordinary police work, by requiring search warrants for example. These precautions are already in place in many countries.

For preventing shoplifting, you have video cameras and tagged products. For preventing white collar crime, you have regulations that either look at what actions the company is doing, or forbid the company from doing suspicious actions. The latter is for the shoplifting example equivalent to someone walking into the store with a bulky coat while a hat obscures their face.

Those two things are not at all similar. A shop takes steps to stop shoplifting within its own premises. The customers decide whether or not they enter that shop. This is an example of a market participant, the shop, taking steps to prevent another market participant from potentially thieving from them.

This is not what the regulations I'm complaining about concern. They concern a third party, the regulator, stepping in and saying that the transaction must proceed in a particular way. There is no good reason for this in my view. If the two parties have come to another arrangement about how the trade can be made why should they be stopped? If there is a potential externality perhaps there is an argument. Also, it is reasonable that there should be default terms, so if certain things are left out of an agreement then the law still indicates what is permissible.

However, while the enforcement may be different, the problem is the same, and I find the white collar criminal remaining unwatched no more palatable than the shoplifter,

That is not what I am proposing. This situation is not analogous to shoplifting.

and will perhaps lead to significantly worse consequences. Unless you have another solution, I think that it is pretty clear that the customer being left with a few safe choices is better than the customer being left with many dangerous ones. Given the clear facts that without action being taken, their will be dangerous choices, and we know the customer will often pick them, causing a ton of damage. Sure you could say this could be taken to extremes as the government takes ever greater control over what the customer is allowed in an attempt to protect, but we have no choice but to plant our flag on the icy slope.

How though do regulations make the transaction significantly safer? Any provision that a regulator asks for in a trade can be requested by the customer. In fact that is how most of these sort of regulations originate, as common contract terms.

The contract terms are matters for the customer and the supplier. The laws role is not to dictate what they are but to give some protection to both sides from fraud.

I just read a Libertarian not long ago who basically said just that, for a paper I was writing on Wyeth v. Levine. Which I find odd given that a second ago Libertarians were about the freedom of the people, but it seems as though it keeps turning into freedom of corporate douchbags to stomp on the people as much as they want. Getting offtrack there, the main point is that just because Torts can be taken to extremes doesn't mean they should be banned altogether, it is necessary for us to find a compromise on it, even if it could potentially slip out of balance. It is the same thing for government regulation. You will never be able to find a clean solution with neat dividing lines ensuring the limitation of government power. It just isn't going to happen.

Well, I agree with you there. I think though that regulations have got out of hand though. Law enforcement agencies should concentrate on the more general parts of the law.

Many occurrences of corporate fraud are helped by this sort of regulation not prevented by it. Most US companies are incorporated in Delaware. Delaware have setup their laws to make shareholders weak and management strong. If shareholders were permitted scope to negotiate contracts with their boards of directors then it is likely they would not permit their position to be as weak as it is. Thankfully Delaware company law has been revised quite a bit recently.

That just shows that there should be universal rules across all states regarding companies made by the federal government.

Why though would federal government make a better job of it than state government. Governance of companies should not be something decided by government. Rather the rules should be laid down by those who own the company, the shareholders, subject to reasonable general laws.

Can't say I really agree with you. Certainly I think that many crimes have a low risk of getting caught, but serious consequences if that happens. I'm not convinced though that the risk-reward situation is that bad. Certainly where I live the police (the Gardi) are not too sharp. Had I no morals I would become a criminal, the possible repercussions simply aren't bad enough to be worth worrying about.

I seriously doubt it would work to your benefit.

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion. But do you really think that the criminal justice system is functional? My view of the UK and Ireland at the least is that it is not.

Define "functional" in this case. You're clearly using a different definition than I am.

Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my wayI'm gonna serve it to youAnd that ain't what you want to hearBut that's what I'll do -- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

However, gun carry is more likely to cause a violent crime than a law degree is. Note that in Boring7's example there is no mention of legal carry with the gun, while the law degree is itself a legal document. Granted, even legal carry is more likely to cause a violent crime than a law degree is, seeing as its near impossible for a law degree to cause such.

Actually, a law degree might make you more likely to be targeted for violent crime(more people will have motive to hate you)... carrying a gun on the other hand makes you more able to defend yourself from violent crime, and can actually abort violent crime in progress without bloodshed. (example: http://www.kfsm.com/global/story.asp?s=9541680 )

However, gun carry is more likely to cause a violent crime than a law degree is. Note that in Boring7's example there is no mention of legal carry with the gun, while the law degree is itself a legal document. Granted, even legal carry is more likely to cause a violent crime than a law degree is, seeing as its near impossible for a law degree to cause such.

Actually, a law degree might make you more likely to be targeted for violent crime(more people will have motive to hate you)...

The law degree is not causing the crime, nevertheless, and even if it did, the probability is minimal enough to be ignored, whereas the frequency of which a legal carry results in a violent crime or suicide is much, much higher.

Can't say I really agree with you. Certainly I think that many crimes have a low risk of getting caught, but serious consequences if that happens. I'm not convinced though that the risk-reward situation is that bad. Certainly where I live the police (the Gardi) are not too sharp. Had I no morals I would become a criminal, the possible repercussions simply aren't bad enough to be worth worrying about.

I seriously doubt it would work to your benefit.

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion. But do you really think that the criminal justice system is functional? My view of the UK and Ireland at the least is that it is not.

Functional enough. Just as everyone thinks they are the competent driver, everyone thinks that they could be the competent criminal. However, being a criminal is equivalent to gambling. You might succeed in the short turn, but those few who are capable enough to succeed in the long term are probably busy doing non-criminal things for a living.

Granted, I think there are about 3 different kinds of crime we could be talking about, all ones with profit based motives:1. Minor Thefts, things like Shoplifting, Thievery, and other such actions.2. Electronic Crime, other Scams3. White Collar Crime, including Embezzling, Insider Trading, or other simply negative skills that aren't officially crimes yet.

Because 3 is not properly regulated and treated as the threat it is, if not outright being supported by corruption, it is more successful than the others. It is my perspective that in is in the interest of the general public to make 3 less likely to be successful.

Certainly most criminals are not very smart or capable. I think this though has a much simpler explanation. Those who are smart and capable have much less reason to commit crime. They can achieve their aims at lower risk.

I'm confused. You seem to be proving my point. Is that your intent?

I certainly accept that the risk of getting caught is one of the reasons that people do not commit crime. I don't think though that with the feeble justice systems of today it is a particularly significant one.

I still say it is significant. In the US, 2.3 million people are in jail and another 4.9 million on probation or parole.

The question was whether or not the prisoner's dilemma showed that its consistently to your benefit to work with society.

I don't agree with the supposed relevance of the prisoner's dilemma to this situation. Normally the prisoners dilemma is about decisions to be made by certain agents. Society is not an agent, it does not make invididual decisions. It is a group, which is something completely different.

By work with society, I don't mean literally working with society, but with the countless people within that society you will meet and play games of the prisoner with, often many times with the same people. It is consistently to your benefit to cooperate in those games, which means its consistently to your benefit to cooperate with society. Same thing.

Seeing as those who work with society tend to be winners, I say that answer is yes.

In light of you recent post on the pay of executives I find this comment somewhat ironic.

How so? Executives are currently able to do defect decisions on their dilemmas and succeed, this results in net losses for society, I wish to implement laws that prevent them from doing so, in order to improve society. Seems pretty straightforward. Its not that they won by making other people lose, but that it was done in a non zero sum way, IE if a CEO gets a bonus that requires 5 workers to be laid off, those 5 workers are no longer able to be as productive, while the CEO probably gained minimal productivity, if anything they gained more ability to be unproductive to society.

Perhaps you are trying to say that defect is a better choice than cooperate for sufficiently stupid or incapable people. I find that extremely doubtful to be true, and the only reason the people who make the choice to defect in that case think otherwise is because they are stupid and incapable. Note that such adjectives do not have to remain true, it is in society's power to change that, they can't, because of the problem of them already having said adjective.

I don't really agree. I think that it is in the interests of very many people to become criminals. They don't not because they are afraid of the consequences but because of the moral codes they follow, for one reason or other.

In today's society, no. I see the cameras in the stores, I see the policemen patrolling and watching, and I know the statistics. Most people who commit crimes will get caught, mainly because they will commit multiple crimes and eventually run out of luck, then lose everything they gained.

Also, I think that capable people tend to be more moral. Since, most types of morality put some emphasis on working. And people who work generally become more capable.

This, combined with your previous statement, is rather disturbing. It seems, like much of Randian philosophy, an excuse to ignore those less fortunate, saying that they are immoral and foolish and brought it upon themselves.

For many of the so-called working-class that is what I think, though not all.

I agree that many of the working class are immoral and foolish and brought their fate upon themselves. I also think that many of the upper class are equally immoral and foolish and did not earn their fate in the slightest.

In actuality, many of these people were never given a chance, and simply sank into the bog at the bottom of society. At this point, they will tend to continue to ensure their own doom, but that was not their fault nor their choice. Society was the one that gave them the raw deal, and it is society that has the power to pull them back out.

How?

Look at Sub-Saharan Africa for an example of an inescapable societal sinkhole. Ours is not as big or as deep, but it is there.

Regardless of that though what I was talking about was something rather different.... In most cases moral codes encourage both obeying the law and working.

Some of them. Religion is the most common foundation for morality, and it typically supports whatever allows it to survive. In a cooperate-cooperate society, it will support cooperate, in a defect-defect society, it will support defect. It is not capable of engineering proper morality, only a product of it.

The same reason I do anything, to make myself happy. Winning arguments is enjoyable. While in theory converting you to my perspective might make society run an iota better and give me a return, but mainly, its winning the argument, or at least learning to refine my own arguments.

Oh, for sport. Fair enough. To be honest though when I've talked to you in the past you don't seem like you do it for sport.

In debate, you are generally supposed to advocate your points with vigor. Also, I'm probably going to end up doing arguing/information gathering for a career, so I better be putting my energies into it.

Fair enough. Hope you don't become a politician

Charisma was my dump stat, so no. Physical stats aren't so good either. I really shouldn't have spent so many points on Int.

What I'm complaining about is the way this is done, not that it is done.

The problem is that it has to be done that way, for it is intrinsic. Like it or not, interference in private affairs is necessary, even if their is the slippery slope danger, just like what is true for torts. It is our job to be informed and watch the government for those slips.

Unless they spot violations of the law, law enforcement won't even know they need to do something. Unless you want the policeman to start watching the corporations themselves. That sounds really orwellian awesome. I'd rather keep the bureaucratic and police powers separate, rather than end up with a setting where the choices are Judge Dredd, Oligarchy, Anarchy, or any of them paired.

I don't think you understand how this sort of thing works. Modern regulatory agencies are not like law enforcement. They deal with the application of rules.

The recent Madoff case gives a good example of this. In 1999 the SEC were warned about Madoffs activities. Articles were written in major investment magazines exploring whether Madoff's fund was a confidence trick. They seem not to have investigated it.

This tallies with my experience of regulatory agencies. What they are interested in is making sure that those they regulate adhere to various rules and make correct filings with them. They presume that by doing so they will prevent crimes from occuring, even though fulfillment of the rules often doesn't gaurantee that a crime hasn't occurred. (Also infringement of the rules often doesn't always mean anything terrible has occurred either).

What they should do is behave more like the police, act as investigators of crime. Doing so would not require Orwellian powers. Much of what financial services companies do is public knowledge. Also, precautions could be put in place similar to how the ordinary police work, by requiring search warrants for example. These precautions are already in place in many countries.

Perhaps. However, I think such will still necessitate considerable interference. Police don't merely react to crime reports and investigate, they set up video cameras and patrol regardless, and such in addition to catching crime also deters it from occurring.

and will perhaps lead to significantly worse consequences. Unless you have another solution, I think that it is pretty clear that the customer being left with a few safe choices is better than the customer being left with many dangerous ones. Given the clear facts that without action being taken, their will be dangerous choices, and we know the customer will often pick them, causing a ton of damage. Sure you could say this could be taken to extremes as the government takes ever greater control over what the customer is allowed in an attempt to protect, but we have no choice but to plant our flag on the icy slope.

How though do regulations make the transaction significantly safer? Any provision that a regulator asks for in a trade can be requested by the customer. In fact that is how most of these sort of regulations originate, as common contract terms.

The contract terms are matters for the customer and the supplier. The laws role is not to dictate what they are but to give some protection to both sides from fraud.

Um, isn't that exactly what the regulations do?

Also, apparently, your customers seem to be adhering to the French model of rational choice theory, the one you denied with vigor. In the real world, the customers do not have access to the knowledge of what regulatory requests they should be making in order to prevent fraud or other major problems. Allowing those customers, who are still capable and productive members of society, to be screwed because they don't have a law degree in addition to everything else they know, is not a good choice of action.

I just read a Libertarian not long ago who basically said just that, for a paper I was writing on Wyeth v. Levine. Which I find odd given that a second ago Libertarians were about the freedom of the people, but it seems as though it keeps turning into freedom of corporate douchbags to stomp on the people as much as they want. Getting offtrack there, the main point is that just because Torts can be taken to extremes doesn't mean they should be banned altogether, it is necessary for us to find a compromise on it, even if it could potentially slip out of balance. It is the same thing for government regulation. You will never be able to find a clean solution with neat dividing lines ensuring the limitation of government power. It just isn't going to happen.

Well, I agree with you there. I think though that regulations have got out of hand though. Law enforcement agencies should concentrate on the more general parts of the law.

Deciding where the regulations should be is reasonable, but you and other Libertarians have repeatedly protested regulatory presence to any extent in a wide range of areas.

Many occurrences of corporate fraud are helped by this sort of regulation not prevented by it. Most US companies are incorporated in Delaware. Delaware have setup their laws to make shareholders weak and management strong. If shareholders were permitted scope to negotiate contracts with their boards of directors then it is likely they would not permit their position to be as weak as it is. Thankfully Delaware company law has been revised quite a bit recently.

That just shows that there should be universal rules across all states regarding companies made by the federal government.

Why though would federal government make a better job of it than state government. Governance of companies should not be something decided by government. Rather the rules should be laid down by those who own the company, the shareholders, subject to reasonable general laws.

Is it reasonable for people in Minnesota to be subject to corporate law in Delaware? People should be entitled to have political control over the Corporate Law that affects their region, since Corporations are multistate, Corporate Law must be on the Federal and not state level. I thought multistate network stuff was one of the few things the Federal Government was clearly specified to have control over, after all.

Guns are used in wildlife conservation, personal protection against violent criminals, deter crime, and other services that can't really be seen as negative.

An attitude I don't really like, espoused here by for example Wodan, is that someone who's law-abiding, has been background checked and thuroughly vetted, has been trained and aproved, etc, will suddenly be more likely to commit crime because he or she carries a firearm. I don't think I've ever heard of a CHL/CWL holder use his firearm to commit crime, but areas where such is legal typically have LESS violent crime than areas where it is verboten.

If there's any exception to it, in normally law-abiding citizens commiting violent crime with a firearm, it's crimes of passion, which typically means it's targeted against the spouse, and then, usually in the home, and thus legal carry has no bearing on it. Countries with no carry allowed have it happen, and if there's not even a gun in the whole country, well, there's always kitchen knives.

An attitude I don't really like, espoused here by for example Wodan, is that someone who's law-abiding, has been background checked and thuroughly vetted, has been trained and aproved, etc, will suddenly be more likely to commit crime because he or she carries a firearm.

I said that someone who's law abiding, has been background checked and thoroughly vetted, has been trained and approved, etc, is the only person I trust to own a firearm. The problem is that is not what actually happens. I do not want guns to be banned, I want them to be treated with the utmost carefulness.

An attitude I don't really like, espoused here by for example Wodan, is that someone who's law-abiding, has been background checked and thuroughly vetted, has been trained and aproved, etc, will suddenly be more likely to commit crime because he or she carries a firearm.

I said that someone who's law abiding, has been background checked and thoroughly vetted, has been trained and approved, etc, is the only person I trust to own a firearm. The problem is that is not what actually happens. I do not want guns to be banned, I want them to be treated with the utmost carefulness.

Not what actually happens? It's required for CHL/CWL.

Then again, there's those rough and rowdy places where you can carry openly without a licence, you know places like: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Kentucky, Virginia, and Vermont. Heck, Montana lets you do it at age 14.

A hundred bucks to your one that montana has a lower death by firearms per capita rate compared to oh say california, new york, or washington.

Um, you are kind of stating the obvious. My concern is not with guns that are properly licensed, but for firearms at gun stores that have a tendency to "disappear" only for them to later show up at crime scenes, much like how firearms bought at gun shows tend to circumvent the rules as well. I don't care about when the rules are followed. I care about when they are not. Which is far too often. Hence, the rules need to be enforced a bit harder till they get the point.

Then again, there's those rough and rowdy places where you can carry openly without a licence, you know places like: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Kentucky, Virginia, and Vermont. Heck, Montana lets you do it at age 14.

A hundred bucks to your one that montana has a lower death by firearms per capita rate compared to oh say california, new york, or washington.

Could you not resort to strawmen? I don't think that's the right word for the logical fallacy that you are using in a semi-joking manner, but its 1:24 AM here so cut me some slack. Montana has a lower death by firearms per capita rate because it has more hunters and less crime ridden ghettos.

Then again, there's those rough and rowdy places where you can carry openly without a licence, you know places like: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Kentucky, Virginia, and Vermont. Heck, Montana lets you do it at age 14.

A hundred bucks to your one that montana has a lower death by firearms per capita rate compared to oh say california, new york, or washington.

Could you not resort to strawmen? I don't think that's the right word for the logical fallacy that you are using in a semi-joking manner, but its 1:24 AM here so cut me some slack. Montana has a lower death by firearms per capita rate because it has more hunters and less crime ridden ghettos.

The point <-

You <-

Even though yes, that is indeed the conclusion I would make as well.

I was:a) Referencing that letting people carry doesn't raise crime, or cause ordinary people to go craaazy.b) Alluding to difference in perception of guns having a much larger impact on such. Note how the states with stricter gun control laws have more violent crime, which caused which is not mine to say though. Note however that the UK, after _completely_ banning handgun ownership(some hunting rifles are still legal to own), firearms deaths have gone up. Restricting it by law does not keep it out of the hands of criminals, only out of the hands of the law-abiding.

The country with the most guns per capita in the world btw? Switzerland. Deaths by firearms? Near nil(probably more in military accidents than crime, and they have no standing army, other than the vatican guards, with their halberds).

b) Alluding to difference in perception of guns having a much larger impact on such. Note how the states with stricter gun control laws have more violent crime, which caused which is not mine to say though.

Well that's just the point. You're arguing that there's some causality between "loose gun control laws" and "low rates of violent crime". The laws are the only part we can directly influence, so the causality is implied through that.

Never minding that places with tighter gun control laws are likely to be highly urbanised, and places with looser gun control laws are likely to be more rural.

Note however that the UK, after _completely_ banning handgun ownership(some hunting rifles are still legal to own), firearms deaths have gone up. Restricting it by law does not keep it out of the hands of criminals, only out of the hands of the law-abiding.

A saying that has much traction with the anti-gun-controllers. However you've not backed up your assertion.

I've got one of my own: Since Australia's own introduction of gun control laws, no massacres have occurred. No-one has has the ability to kill four people at a time. In fact, it was big news when one person was shot recently. Occupied the front page for days, even.

In fact, the only citations I've found that say that the Australian gun control laws were a bad thing are websites that advertise for Ann Coulter. And they refuse to back up their figures too. And the articles look suspiciously cut and pasted...

The country with the most guns per capita in the world btw? Switzerland. Deaths by firearms? Near nil(probably more in military accidents than crime, and they have no standing army, other than the vatican guards, with their halberds).

Try again. Apparently Switzerland has an unusually low rate of homicide, and as such, nearly 40% of all murders are done with a gun. This is almost as bad as the US. Australia, by comparison, has the same metric at less than 17%.

Most gun crime is done with stolen, or otherwise illegal, weapons. Tighter control of ownership and transfer is in aid of swifter identification of these illegal firearms.

Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my wayI'm gonna serve it to youAnd that ain't what you want to hearBut that's what I'll do -- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

a) Referencing that letting people carry doesn't raise crime, or cause ordinary people to go craaazy.

Where have I suggested this? All I have suggested is that before we grant people the right to carry, we actually check to see whether or not they are craaazy. Those who sell firearms have made a habit of using loopholes and other underhanded methods to sell guns to people without giving them a background check, in addition to selling guns that are basically illegal.

b) Alluding to difference in perception of guns having a much larger impact on such. Note how the states with stricter gun control laws have more violent crime, which caused which is not mine to say though.

Note however that the UK, after _completely_ banning handgun ownership(some hunting rifles are still legal to own), firearms deaths have gone up. Restricting it by law does not keep it out of the hands of criminals, only out of the hands of the law-abiding.

I would request a statistic to prove such. From what I understand, firearms deaths have decreased there, in favor of knifing. Britain, unlike the US, is in a far better position to outright ban guns, seeing as they are A, smaller, and B, on an island.

The country with the most guns per capita in the world btw? Switzerland. Deaths by firearms? Near nil(probably more in military accidents than crime, and they have no standing army, other than the vatican guards, with their halberds).

The Swiss also don't have much in the way of ghettoes, seeing as they have an isolated, insular, population, that has not had armed conflict in centuries.

Look, what do I have to say? After recently being intellectually sucker punched on the issue of gun control, I don't support banning handguns to any degree, but nevertheless, I demand that rigorous standards be adhered to. Selling automatic weapons to people off the books or at gun shows is bad. Selling guns of any sort to people without background checks is bad. That's it, nothing to it.